Study design, rationale, and baseline characteristics: evaluation of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia with residual risk in addition to atorvastatin therapy (FIRST) trial

Pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.

Network Medicine Approach in Prevention and Personalized Treatment of Dyslipidemias

Dyslipidemias can affect molecular networks underlying the metabolic homeostasis and vascular function leading to atherogenesis at early stages of development. Since disease-related proteins often interact with each other in functional modules, many advanced network-oriented algorithms were applied to patient-derived big data to identify the complex gene-environment interactions underlying the early pathophysiology of dyslipidemias and atherosclerosis. Both the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 7 (PCSK7) and collagen type 1 alpha 1 chain (COL1A1) genes arose from the application of TFfit and WGCNA algorithms, respectively, as potential useful therapeutic targets in prevention of dyslipidemias. Moreover, the Seed Connector algorithm (SCA) algorithm suggested a putative role of the neuropilin-1 (NRP1) protein as drug target, whereas a regression network analysis reported that niacin may provide benefits in mixed dyslipidemias. Dyslipidemias are highly heterogeneous at the clinical level; thus, it would be helpful to overcome traditional evidence-based paradigm toward a personalized risk assessment and therapy. Network Medicine uses omics data, artificial intelligence (AI), imaging tools, and clinical information to design personalized therapy of dyslipidemias and atherosclerosis. Recently, a novel non-invasive AI-derived biomarker, named Fat Attenuation Index (FAI™) has been established to early detect clinical signs of atherosclerosis. Moreover, an integrated AI-radiomics approach can detect fibrosis and microvascular remodeling improving the customized risk assessment. Here, we offer a network-based roadmap ranging from novel molecular pathways to digital therapeutics which can improve personalized therapy of dyslipidemias.

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk: Meta-Analysis of 119 Clinical Trials Involving 100 667 Patients

BACKGROUND

To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

METHODS

We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach.

RESULTS

We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.

Fibrates for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease events

BACKGROUND

Fibrates are effective for modifying atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and particularly for lowering serum triglycerides. However, evidence that fibrates reduce mortality and morbidity associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), or overall mortality and morbidity, in the primary prevention of CVD is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane Review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of fibrates versus placebo or usual care or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (all from inception to 19 May 2016). We searched four clinical trial registers (last searched on 3 August 2016) with the help of an experienced professional librarian. We searched the databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effects of fibrate therapy in the primary prevention of CVD events. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all RCTs comparing the effects of fibrate monotherapy versus placebo or usual care, or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone. Included studies had a follow-up of at least six months for the primary prevention of CVD events. We excluded trials with clofibrate, because it was withdrawn from the market in 2002.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential study inclusion. Two review authors independently retrieved the full-text papers and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggregate data on primary and secondary outcomes. We tested for heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q-test and used the I² statistic to measure inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler software (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible trials including 16,135 individuals. The mean age of trial populations varied across trials; between 47.3 and 62.3 years. Four trials included individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2 only. The mean treatment duration and follow-up of participants across trials was 4.8 years. We judged the risks of selection and performance bias to be low; risks of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were unclear. Reporting of adverse effects by included trials was very limited; that is why we used discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects as a proxy for adverse effects. Patients treated with fibrates had a reduced risk for the combined primary outcome of CVD death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke compared to patients on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence). For secondary outcomes we found RRs for fibrate therapy compared with placebo of 0.79 for combined coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence); 1.01 for overall mortality (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); 1.01 for non-CVD mortality (95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); and 1.38 for discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects (95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; participants = 4805; studies = 3; I² = 74%; very low-quality of evidence). Data on quality of life were not available from any trial. Trials that evaluated fibrates in the background of statins (2 studies) showed no benefits in preventing cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that fibrates lower the risk for cardiovascular and coronary events in primary prevention, but the absolute treatment effects in the primary prevention setting are modest (absolute risk reductions < 1%). There is low-quality evidence that fibrates have no effect on overall or non-CVD mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that fibrates are not associated with increased risk for adverse effects.

Changing characteristics of statin-related cIMT trials from 1988 to 2006

OBJECTIVES

Changes in cIMT have not been consistently correlated with cardiovascular risk reduction in clinical studies. The variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) changes in published statin LDL-C-lowering studies in relation to various baseline and study characteristics was assessed.

METHODS

This was an exploratory analysis of study-level data pooled from statin-treatment arms of 13 studies conducted during 1988-2006. Baseline mean common carotid artery (CCA)/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Potential relationships between prespecified covariates and cIMT changes were assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels were higher in the combined studies conducted before year 2000 (0.8521 mm) than after 2000 (0.7458 mm), and somewhat higher in study populations of patients with coronary heart disease risk and those with greater LDL-C reductions. Mean CCA/cIMT changes were also larger for the studies conducted before 2000 (-0.0119 mm/year) than after 2000 (-0.0013 mm/year). Notably, studies conducted before 2000 were of longer duration (≥ 2 years) than after 2000 (<2 years). Heterogeneity in cIMT change was attributed to baseline and study-design characteristics. Longer study duration and greater LDL-C reductions were significantly related to larger annualized cIMT changes. Maximum cIMT results were similar.

CONCLUSION

Baseline cIMT and LDL-C levels were lower, and cIMT changes were smaller in statin cIMT trials conducted after 2000 than those before 2000. These trends are consistent with increased treatment and control of high LDL-C levels over recent years in clinical practice, and may influence the results of cIMT studies.

Systematic review: Evaluating the effect of lipid-lowering therapy on lipoprotein and lipid values

Purpose

This systematic review was performed to summarize published experience using low density lipoprotein particle number (LDL-P) to monitor the efficacy of lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies.

Methods

Studies were identified from a literature search of MEDLINE (January 1, 2000 – June 30, 2012); and abstract searches of select conferences. All accepted studies reported mean (or median) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based LDL-P values for at least 10 subjects receiving lipid lowering pharmacotherapy.

Results

Searches revealed 36 studies (with 61 treatment arms) in which LDL-P measurements were reported pre- and post-treatment. Most studies also reported changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but fewer studies reported changes in apolipoprotein B (apoB)(n = 20) and non-HDL-C (n = 28). Treatments included statins (22 arms/15 studies), fibrates (7 arms/7studies), niacin (7 arms/6 studies), bile acid sequestrants (5 arms/2 studies), an anti-apoB oligonucleotide (2 arms/2 studies), combination therapies (8 arms/6 studies), anti-diabetics (5 arms/4 studies), and, other treatments (5 arms/2 studies). Lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy resulted in reductions in mean LDL-P in all but two studies. In several statin studies, the percent reductions in LDL-P were smaller than reductions in LDL-C, comparable changes were reported when LDL-P and apoB, were reported.

Conclusions

Study-level data from this systemic review establish that different lipid lowering agents can lead to discordance between LDL-P and LDL-C, therefore, basing LDL-lowering therapy only on the achievement of cholesterol goals may result in a treatment gap. Therefore, the use of LDL-P for monitoring lipid-lowering therapy, particularly for statins, can provide a more accurate assessment of residual cardiovascular risk.

Effects of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with mixed dyslipidemia on atorvastatin therapy: randomized, placebo-controlled study (FIRST)

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether adding a fibrate to statin therapy reduces residual cardiovascular risk associated with elevated triglycerides and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, The Evaluation of Choline Fenofibrate (ABT-335) on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness (cIMT) in Subjects with Type IIb Dyslipidemia with Residual Risk in Addition to Atorvastatin Therapy (FIRST) trial evaluated the effects of fenofibric acid (FA) treatment on cIMT in patients with mixed dyslipidemia on atorvastatin.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in patients with mixed dyslipidemia (fasting triglycerides, ≥150 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ≤45 [men] or 55 mg/dL [women]; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ≤100 mg/dL once and averaging ≤105 mg/dL) and a history of coronary heart disease or risk equivalent. Patients on background atorvastatin (continued on starting dose or titrated to 40 mg, if needed) were randomized to FA 135 mg or placebo. The primary end point was rate of change from baseline through week 104 of the mean posterior-wall cIMT, measured by ultrasound. In patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol while on atorvastatin background therapy, rate of change in posterior-wall cIMT was similar with FA plus atorvastatin (-0.006 mm/y) versus atorvastatin monotherapy (0.000 mm/y; P=0.22). FA plus atorvastatin was favored (P<0.05) in 5 of 24 prespecified subgroups: age ≥60 years, history of coronary artery disease, cIMT >0.795 mm, triglycerides 170 to 235 mg/dL, and statin use at entry. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of both drugs; however, FA plus atorvastatin was associated with a greater incidence of renal-related adverse events compared with atorvastatin monotherapy (6.5% versus 0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with atorvastatin monotherapy, FA plus atorvastatin did not further decrease cIMT progression in high-risk patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

A reappraisal of the risks and benefits of treating to target with cholesterol lowering drugs

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of death globally, and lipid modification, particularly lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), is one of the cornerstones of prevention and treatment. However, even after lowering of LDLc to conventional goals, a sizeable number of patients continue to suffer cardiovascular events. More aggressive lowering of LDLc and optimization of other lipid parameters like triglycerides (TG) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) have been proposed as two potential strategies to address this residual risk. These strategies entail use of maximal doses of highly potent HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and combination therapy with other lipid modifying agents. Though statins in general are fairly well tolerated, adverse events like myopathy are dose related. There are further risks with combination therapy. In this article, we review the adverse effects of lipid modifying agents used alone and in combination and weigh these effects against the evidence demonstrating their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all cause mortality. For patients with established CVD, statins are the only group of drugs that have shown consistent reductions in hard outcomes. Though more aggressive lipid lowering with high dose potent statins can reduce rates of non fatal events and need for interventions, the incremental mortality benefits remain unclear, and their use is associated with a higher rate of drug related adverse effects. Myopathy and renal events have been a significant concern with the use of high potency statin drugs, in particular simvastatin and rosuvastatin. For patients who have not reached target LDL levels or have residual lipid abnormalities on maximal doses of statins, the addition of other agents has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and carries an increased risk of adverse events. The clinical benefits of drugs to raise HDLc remain unproven. In patients without known cardiovascular disease, there is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of aggressive pursuit of numerical lipid targets, particularly with respect to all cause mortality. Certainly, in statin intolerant patients, alternative agents with a low side effect profile are desirable. Bile acid sequestrants are an effective and safe choice for decreasing LDLc, and omega-3 fatty acids are safe agents to decrease TG. There remains an obvious need to design and carry out large scale studies to help determine which agents, when combined with statins, have the greatest benefit on cardiovascular disease with the least added risk. These studies should be designed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes rather than surrogate endpoints, and require a comprehensive assessment and reporting of safety outcomes.

Molecular sources of residual cardiovascular risk, clinical signals, and innovative solutions: relationship with subclinical disease, undertreatment, and poor adherence: implications of new evidence upon optimizing cardiovascular patient outcomes

Residual risk, the ongoing appreciable risk of major cardiovascular events (MCVE) in statin-treated patients who have achieved evidence-based lipid goals, remains a concern among cardiologists. Factors that contribute to this continuing risk are atherogenic non-low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles and atherogenic processes unrelated to LDL cholesterol, including other risk factors, the inherent properties of statin drugs, and patient characteristics, ie, genetics and behaviors. In addition, providers, health care systems, the community, public policies, and the environment play a role. Major statin studies suggest an average 28% reduction in LDL cholesterol and a 31% reduction in relative risk, leaving a residual risk of about 69%. Incomplete reductions in risk, and failure to improve conditions that create risk, may result in ongoing progression of atherosclerosis, with new and recurring lesions in original and distant culprit sites, remodeling, arrhythmias, rehospitalizations, invasive procedures, and terminal disability. As a result, identification of additional agents to reduce residual risk, particularly administered together with statin drugs, has been an ongoing quest. The current model of atherosclerosis involves many steps during which disease may progress independently of guideline-defined elevations in LDL cholesterol. Differences in genetic responsiveness to statin therapy, differences in ability of the endothelium to regenerate and repair, and differences in susceptibility to nonlipid risk factors, such as tobacco smoking, hypertension, and molecular changes associated with obesity and diabetes, may all create residual risk. A large number of inflammatory and metabolic processes may also provide eventual therapeutic targets to lower residual risk. Classically, epidemiologic and other evidence suggested that raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol would be cardioprotective. When LDL cholesterol is aggressively lowered to targets, low HDL cholesterol levels are still inversely related to MCVE. The efflux capacity, or ability to relocate cholesterol out of macrophages, is believed to be a major antiatherogenic mechanism responsible for reduction in MCVE mediated in part by healthy HDL. HDL cholesterol is a complex molecule with antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, antiplatelet, and vasodilatory properties, among which is protection of LDL from oxidation. HDL-associated paraoxonase-1 has a major effect on endothelial function. Further, HDL promotes endothelial repair and progenitor cell health, and supports production of nitric oxide. HDL from patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disease may fail to protect or even become proinflammatory or pro-oxidant. Mendelian randomization and other clinical studies in which raising HDL cholesterol has not been beneficial suggest that high plasma levels do not necessarily reduce cardiovascular risk. These data, coupled with extensive preclinical information about the functional heterogeneity of HDL, challenge the "HDL hypothesis", ie, raising HDL cholesterol per se will reduce MCVE. After the equivocal AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes) study and withdrawal of two major cholesteryl ester transfer protein compounds, one for off-target adverse effects and the other for lack of efficacy, development continues for two other agents, ie, anacetrapib and evacetrapib, both of which lower LDL cholesterol substantially. The negative but controversial HPS2-THRIVE (the Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) trial casts further doubt on the HDL cholesterol hypothesis. The growing impression that HDL functionality, rather than abundance, is clinically important is supported by experimental evidence highlighting the conditional pleiotropic actions of HDL. Non-HDL cholesterol reflects the cholesterol in all atherogenic particles containing apolipoprotein B, and has outperformed LDL cholesterol as a lipid marker of cardiovascular risk and future mortality. In addition to including a measure of residual risk, the advantages of using non-HDL cholesterol as a primary lipid target are now compelling. Reinterpretation of data from the Treating to New Targets study suggests that better control of smoking, body weight, hypertension, and diabetes will help lower residual risk. Although much improved, control of risk factors other than LDL cholesterol currently remains inadequate due to shortfalls in compliance with guidelines and poor patient adherence. More efficient and greater use of proven simple therapies, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, combined with statin therapy, may be more fruitful in improving outcomes than using other complex therapies. Comprehensive, intensive, multimechanistic, global, and national programs using primordial, primary, and secondary prevention to lower the total level of cardiovascular risk are necessary.

Carotid intima-media thickness testing as an asymptomatic cardiovascular disease identifier and method for making therapeutic decisions

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability in the United States. Although current therapies can reduce the risk for CVD, they are only given to patients who are considered to be at risk, and are therefore only beneficial if a patient's risk is accurately predicted before he or she sustains a cardiovascular (CV) event. Unfortunately, even relatively accurate risk factor analyses, such as the Reynolds Risk Score algorithm, fail to identify some patients who will sustain a CV event within 10 years. In contrast, the presence of an atheroma is an absolute predictor for the potential of an atherothrombotic event to occur, and it is therefore reasonable to anchor clinical decisions based on this knowledge. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) testing via B-mode ultrasound is a safe, simple, and inexpensive method for evaluating CV risk by measuring the combined thickness of the intimal and medial layers of the arterial wall. Use of CIMT testing can also detect marked thickening of the arterial wall, possibly indicating plaques or atheromas that are associated with accelerated atherosclerotic disease and increased risk for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. These characteristics make CIMT a practical supplemental method that physicians can use when making decisions. Moreover, the ability of CIMT testing to identify and quantify atherosclerotic disease has led to the adoption of CIMT as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials, allowing the efficacy of new drugs to be assessed much more rapidly than would be possible by focusing solely on CV event or mortality rates. To date, several trials have provided evidence to indicate that some CVD therapies slow, stop, or reverse the progression of CIMT. Although many of these studies show that changes in CIMT predict future CV events, the value of CIMT testing in CVD risk assessment is still vigorously debated. In this article, we clarify the utility of CIMT testing for risk classification and reexamine its usefulness as a method for assessing therapeutic efficacy.